It's kind of ironic when you think about it. Metals are the best (portable/non-land) store of wealth around, and Bitcoins are digital.

It is. But when you think about it, metal coins are also still just as much a symbolic representation of economic value as the the digital data in a bank account. The intrinsic value of the metal in a coin is not equivalent to the economic value it represents. So in the end it's really all just symbols and tokens, no matter what the currency is fabricated out of...

Money is more an idea than it is a thing. Possibly it's the closest thing to "pure information" the human race has ever created representative objects for.

It's kind of ironic when you think about it. Metals are the best (portable/non-land) store of wealth around, and Bitcoins are digital.

It is. But when you think about it, metal coins are also still just as much a symbolic representation of economic value as the the digital data in a bank account. The intrinsic value of the metal in a coin is not equivalent to the economic value it represents. So in the end it's really all just symbols and tokens, no matter what the currency is fabricated out of...

Money is more an idea than it is a thing. Possibly it's the closest thing to "pure information" the human race has ever created representative objects for.

Well, yes and no. You're referring to money in a fiat system where it isn't tied to a commodity. (Which is what we have now.)

What I was referring to there was "metals" as in silver, gold, palladium, etc. I wasn't referring to coinage so much, but I can see why you'd take it that way.

The issue of coinage is a bit more involved than just not being equal to the face value. However, that's linked to the monetary system, and in a system where the money is linked to the currency in a strong way, then things are different. But, that's getting off-track.

Current coinage in circulation is basically worthless. It has a face value, but the value of the metals is virtually nothing. Even pennies aren't made of copper anymore because copper is too expensive (?).

However, mints create coinage that has value far above the face value. Take a $50 coin made of platinum that trades at around $1,700 or so.

Probably, or at least IMHO, the best valued coin out there is the 1 oz 9999 fine silver $5 Canadian Maple Leaf. It has the highest face value of any coin in its class, and currently trades at about $37, or $34.50 spot + margin. It's also 4x9's pure instead of 3x9's pure.

Other common coinage before about 1965 was 90% silver (or so), and $1,000 face value trades at around $25,000 (715 oz about). Take $1,000 of any current coin in circulation, and you have no hope of getting even face value for its metal. Zinc is trading at around $0.91 per pound or so, which is what is in a lot of coins. Nickels aren't even nickel anymore, which isn't surprising as it trades at over $8 per pound. Copper is almost $4.

There is a fundamental disconnect between currency and metal now, but that is entirely due to the current fiat monetary system, and private central banks that manipulate interest rates and currencies, but not a necessary disconnect - you can well imagine a system where currency is tied to a commodity.

The metal itself is far from symbolic. The metal in common coinage is basically worthless, but plain old "metal" (not the Judas Priest variety) still has very real applications that make it valuable. e.g. Silver in semiconductors or solar panels, etc.

Paper currency (or plastic as in Vietnam or Australia) is fundamentally worthless. Toilet paper is intrinsically more valuable because it has a real use beyond burning. Take US Confederate currency now - it has no value at all except to collectors.

But, I suppose that's still about the same for Bitcoins - how can 1's and 0's on a screen have an intrinsic value? You can't "use" the 1's and 0's. That stands in stark contrast to something like a 1 oz silver coin that you can actually use the material from, and make something with it. Same for old pennies that were made of copper - you can use the copper from them to do lots of things - they have an *intrinsic* value on their own, and even entirely outside of any monetary system, they have real uses. Bitcoins only have use inside of the system - in the exact same way as US, Canadian, British, Australian, and other currencies are only valuable inside of the monetary system -- otherwise, they're worth less than toilet paper. Literally.

Precious metals only have an intrinsic value within a system too. They're not directly consumable. They need to be refined, assayed, and agreed upon by whomever. They need both a market and an exchange before they become valued. So I'd like suggest they don't have much 'intrinsic' value outside of the society that assigns such value to them. And once you get outside a technological society, the far more common metals and alloys (iron and steel) are much more valuable (i.e. useful and usable) than the more precious variety which are used in less advanced societies primarily for decoration - if they are used at all.

Look at the early days of the Russian Revolution. Nobles were fleeing and bartering gold, jewels, and other precious objects for basic commodities such as food - and half the time having their offers refused. "You can't eat gold" as the saying goes.

Precious metals only have an intrinsic value within a system too. They're not directly consumable. They need to be refined, assayed, and agreed upon by whomever. They need both a market and an exchange before they become valued. So I'd like suggest they don't have much 'intrinsic' value outside of the society that assigns such value to them. And once you get outside a technological society, the far more common metals and alloys (iron and steel) are much more valuable (i.e. useful and usable) than the more precious variety which are used in less advanced societies primarily for decoration - if they are used at all.

Look at the early days of the Russian Revolution. Nobles were fleeing and bartering gold, jewels, and other precious objects for basic commodities such as food - and half the time having their offers refused. "You can't eat gold" as the saying goes.

Not so sure about that. You hit a few points - precious, system, and technological society.

Outside of a technological society, silver still cannot be replaced by other metals as an antibiotic/disinfectant. But, you'd have to know that, which kind of makes the use anachronistic.

Iron and copper certainly are far more useful than gold or other precious metals for practical, everyday life.

But no matter what system or level of technology, any metal is still more useful than an arrangement of a few electrons (a charge or whatever - more than one way to skin the cat here) that can store a single number, like for Bitcoin (or bank accounts). Those few electrons in themselves really have no value that can compare with a nice sledge hammer.

Metals simply are fantastic for tools, even if you're on a deserted island. And there, they still have value, entirely outside of any system or society.

I think that the "deserted island" is a good measure for the intrinsic value of something. i.e. Is it useful in and of itself. Metals fill that quite well, though precious metals, not so much as iron, copper, etc. The "deserted island" nicely measures the utility of something, and not what people believe about it, e.g. fiat currencies.

But --- getting back into a technological society --- precious metals absolutely have intrinsic value still. The average car has a few hundred dollars of platinum in it, used for functional purposes because platinum is good at doing some things.

Similarly, silver has countless uses from clothing to semiconductors and solar panels. Silver is used extensively in manufacturing.

So, if you're on a deserted island, and you have solar panels to power your, well, whatever - doesn't matter - blenders and fridges maybe - and then magically all the silver disappeared, you'd be left without power. (Same goes for gold in electronics, etc. etc.)

Maybe not that simple, but I'm trying to get at the idea that irrespective of any kind of societal value placed on a precious metal, they still have practical uses that "belief" can't replace. I say "belief", because that's what "powers" fiat currencies like the US dollar or bitcoin or whatever.

Now, perhaps gold (or others) are overvalued now, but none of that diminishes its suitability to perform certain tasks/functions, and those tasks/functions are entirely independent of any society as they are merely capacities to do something - a potential if you will.

Have we hit a red herring, or are we talking about the same thing when we say "intrinsic value"?

Precious metals only have an intrinsic value within a system too. They're not directly consumable. They need to be refined, assayed, and agreed upon by whomever. They need both a market and an exchange before they become valued. So I'd like suggest they don't have much 'intrinsic' value outside of the society that assigns such value to them. And once you get outside a technological society, the far more common metals and alloys (iron and steel) are much more valuable (i.e. useful and usable) than the more precious variety which are used in less advanced societies primarily for decoration - if they are used at all.

I think that's pretty clear. If precious metals were just valued for their industrial worth, I wonder what they'd be worth (probably impossible to estimate).

_______________________________

Re the metal in coins, I wonder what it actually costs to make a coins? I wouldn't be suprised if the smaller nominations cost more than their worth - yup -

Quote

As of 2012, it costs the U.S. Mint 2.41 cents to make a cent because of the cost of materials and production.[4]

Precious metals only have an intrinsic value within a system too. They're not directly consumable. They need to be refined, assayed, and agreed upon by whomever. They need both a market and an exchange before they become valued. So I'd like suggest they don't have much 'intrinsic' value outside of the society that assigns such value to them. And once you get outside a technological society, the far more common metals and alloys (iron and steel) are much more valuable (i.e. useful and usable) than the more precious variety which are used in less advanced societies primarily for decoration - if they are used at all.

I think that's pretty clear. If precious metals were just valued for their industrial worth, I wonder what they'd be worth (probably impossible to estimate).

_______________________________

Re the metal in coins, I wonder what it actually costs to make a coins? I wouldn't be suprised if the smaller nominations cost more than their worth - yup -

Quote

As of 2012, it costs the U.S. Mint 2.41 cents to make a cent because of the cost of materials and production.[4]

There's about $0.005 worth of materials in a penny. The majority of the cost is production. They're being a bit disingenuous there by calling it "materials and production" as it's almost entirely production costs.

^ yes! I didnt mean to be disingenious there, I should have said that too. Was literally just wondering about the cost of production.(Obviously if higher value coins were made with valuable metals, that factor would be a relatively small percentage.)

^ yes! I didnt mean to be disingenious there, I should have said that too. Was literally just wondering about the cost of production.(Obviously if higher value coins were made with valuable metals, that factor would be a relatively small percentage.)

Oh - sorry -- I was pointing the finger there at the Wikipedia article quote. Not you.

And yes -- when minting higher value coins, like silver dollars, the production costs are disproportionately far lower compared to face value and real value.

"In one instance, a rai being transported by canoe was accidentally dropped and sank to the sea floor. Although it was never seen again, everyone agreed that the rai must still be there, so it continued to be transacted as genuine currency.[4] What is important is that ownership of the rai is clear to everyone, not that the rai is physically transferred or even physically accessible to either party in the transfer."

One of the most brilliant "small innovations" I ever saw was the 50+ (some exceptions apply) quarters for the US Quarter dollar. Brilliant. Govt makes an actual product that is "sold" (removed from circulation by collectors, both pro and amateur). They're rather pretty and it's a good year's worth of fun trying to finish the set (without going to ebay, just using register change.) PS That reminds me ... gimme a min to check...

Not counting people who are total experts in micro-millimeter observance, all the face sides are the same. (Let's even assume you get the 'mints' right, most of my spares are the Philly Mint not the Denver mint, so with a little work you could normalize those.) So theoretically, though it apparently never went viral, you could play "card games" with the coins. The Suits part is a little tough, but with a little work others still work. And if some twerp was counting "50 vs 52" I reply that there are now TWO Puerto Rico quarters, not on my standard collector board, but there they are.

"In one instance, a rai being transported by canoe was accidentally dropped and sank to the sea floor. Although it was never seen again, everyone agreed that the rai must still be there, so it continued to be transacted as genuine currency.[4] What is important is that ownership of the rai is clear to everyone, not that the rai is physically transferred or even physically accessible to either party in the transfer."

"In one instance, a rai being transported by canoe was accidentally dropped and sank to the sea floor. Although it was never seen again, everyone agreed that the rai must still be there, so it continued to be transacted as genuine currency.[4] What is important is that ownership of the rai is clear to everyone, not that the rai is physically transferred or even physically accessible to either party in the transfer."

"In one instance, a rai being transported by canoe was accidentally dropped and sank to the sea floor. Although it was never seen again, everyone agreed that the rai must still be there, so it continued to be transacted as genuine currency.[4] What is important is that ownership of the rai is clear to everyone, not that the rai is physically transferred or even physically accessible to either party in the transfer."

The European Central Bank (ECB) recently issued a report on digital currencies. The report largely revolves around Bitcoins and Linden Dollars, and provides a review of the currencies from the perspective of central bankers. Unsurprisingly, they found the currencies to pose “risks” that potentially require future “regulation.”

If central banksters are against Bitcoin, then there must be something GOOD about Bitcoin~!